Join Us

How the GOP is saving the freedom to marry

"Last week, a U.S. District Court judge in Boston struck down a significant
portion of the Defense of Marriage Act, ruling that the controversial 1996
federal law violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution by denying
gay and lesbian couples the federal benefits afforded to straight couples.
Although Massachusetts legalized the freedom to marry in 2004, couples who wed were
prohibited from claiming Social Security survivors' benefits, filing joint tax
returns, and leaving work to care for a sick spouse. The court ruled that the
federal government must treat the state's married gay couples the same way as
everyone else. 'The Constitution 'neither knows nor tolerates classes among
citizens,' the court opined, echoing the words of Justice John Harlan, the
lone dissenter in Plessy v. Ferguson, the notorious 1896 Supreme Court
case that upheld racial segregation.

"Nearly as significant as the
decision itself is the political affiliation of the judge who made it:
79-year-old Joseph Tauro, the longest-serving appointee of Richard Nixon. Why is
this significant? Because while the recent confirmation hearings for Elena Kagan
dwelt on whether 'activist' liberal judges appointed by Democrats would
trample legal precedent, the judges who have begun the constitutional protection
of marriage equality have mostly been Republican appointees like
Tauro.

"Last year, the Iowa Supreme Court struck down a marriage equality ban
on the grounds that it violated the due process and equal protection clauses of
the state constitution. The unanimous decision was written by Justice Mark Cady,
a conservative placed on the court by the former Republican governor Terry
Branstad. In 2008, the Connecticut Supreme Court struck down a comparable
prohibition in an opinion written by Justice Richard Palmer, an appointee of
Governor Lowell Weicker, a three-term Republican senator who became an
independent. The Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling was written by Chief Justice
Margaret Marshall, named to the court by one Republican governor (William Weld)
and elevated to chief justice by another (Paul Cellucci).

"This summer's
other major ruling on marriage equality, along with Tauro's, will come from the
federal district court in California, where Chief Judge Vaughn Walker will
decide whether to overturn the state's Proposition 8, which bans the freedom to marry.
The betting is that he will, which would be notable not only because of his
political lineage but because Walker's nomination by Ronald Reagan was thwarted
by Democrats -- led by the current House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi -- who believed
he was prejudiced against homosexuals. They were mistaken. Reappointed by George
H.W. Bush and this time confirmed, Walker demonstrated no prejudice.

... "What all these judges share is their distinctiveness from Republican
appointments over the last two decades, who tend to be activists affiliated with
conservative outfits like the Federalist Society -- think John Roberts and
Samuel Alito. This makes the Republican pedigrees of the judges moving the freedom to marry toward legality all the more striking, particularly in how it contrasts
with conservative outcries about judicial activism. But more than that, it's a
gauge of how far from the mainstream modern conservative jurists have
drifted."